Huh? That's inherently impossible for ICEs.Tommy Cookers wrote: ↑21 Jan 2019, 11:48constant torque ICEs have been made and they worked
F1 is constant torque design but fuel rate is rigged to prevent constant torque running and compel traditional 'racy' running
Sorry Mr. Cookers but you´re concluding that those particular characteristics of the restricted F1 ICEs are the normal behaviour of an ICE. Even that same F1 ICE would be very different if not restricted by rules, and the torque curve would be far from flatTommy Cookers wrote: ↑21 Jan 2019, 13:11F1 has a fuel rate limit for every rpm
the rate reduces disproportionately at rpm below 10500 so the engine is prevented by rule from using constant torque running
if gears were banned the cars could manage without them - but for this rule
the EM is the extreme opposite
the torque-producing 'fuel' is current - which seems to be unlimited by rule eg at low rpm
so the performance characteristics of the EM and the EM drive notionally appear to form a complete substitute for gears
the big question (which no-one addresses) is ......
the designer-chosen current (torque) limits in the EM drive vs. the designer-chosen voltage (rpm) limits in the EM drive .....
if there's no conflict between these factors and others - I'd certainly like to know how there isn't
I think we have different concepts about what a flat curve isTim.Wright wrote: ↑21 Jan 2019, 21:19Turbo diesels have E-motor like characteristics apart from both extremes of the rev range.
In fact any turbo ICE has a pretty flat torque response apart from the extremes.
Obviously they can't replicate the stall torque or the constant power torque roll-off that an E-motor has.
Andres125sx wrote: ↑21 Jan 2019, 21:57I think we have different concepts about what a flat curve is
the FE task helps the designer of EMs and their drives because the rpm and torque range is small as the max speeds are lowAndres125sx wrote: ↑21 Jan 2019, 21:33....... OTOH EMs work at max torque for a much wider range of rpm so they´re infinitely more versatile and the reason except size they the same no matter how different is the task
Ok, if you take a heavily oversized engine (wich is oversized exactly to fullfill the bottom end and make the curve flatter) wich will be used at a small fraction of its capabilities 99.999% of its lifespan, then ok, that´s more or less flat.Tim.Wright wrote: ↑21 Jan 2019, 22:31http://images.pistonheads.com/nimg/3225 ... ueGr-L.jpgAndres125sx wrote: ↑21 Jan 2019, 21:57I think we have different concepts about what a flat curve is
http://paultan.org/images.paultan.org/u ... _graph.jpg
http://www.cumminshub.com/img/figures/2 ... -graph.png
Sorry but both statements are wrong. Torque needs power, not current, and power can be produced with high voltage and low current, low voltage and high current, or both similar.Tommy Cookers wrote: ↑22 Jan 2019, 00:57the FE task helps the designer of EMs and their drives because the rpm and torque range is small as the max speeds are lowAndres125sx wrote: ↑21 Jan 2019, 21:33....... OTOH EMs work at max torque for a much wider range of rpm so they´re infinitely more versatile and the reason except size they the same no matter how different is the task
torque needs current and rpm needs voltage